ciso_assistant_api_threats_batch_action_createRun a batch action on multiple threat objects in CISO Assistant to apply bulk updates or status changes across selected threats.
Perform a batch action on multiple objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.3.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-read-only, non-idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the description owes context the annotations cannot carry — which actions are supported (delete vs update), atomicity on partial failure, and permission/auth requirements. None of that is present; the sentence merely rephrases the annotation profile.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no waste, but the brevity is under-specification rather than economy — nothing in it earns its place because nothing actionable is conveyed. Structured well, substantively empty.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
A batch mutation with no parameters, no output schema, and no annotations conveying safety beyond hints is left almost entirely unexplained. The agent cannot determine what a valid invocation looks like or what a partial success returns; the description should be carrying that burden and is not.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema has zero properties, so there are no parameters for the description to clarify. However, an empty schema on a mutation endpoint strongly implies the action payload arrives some other way, and the description does nothing to explain the expected action vocabulary or object identifiers — a gap only the description could fill.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description says only "Perform a batch action on multiple objects" – it never states the resource is threats, and "objects" is generic filler. Against dozens of near-identical `*_batch_action_create` siblings, this text gives the agent no way to tell it apart; disambiguation depends entirely on the tool name.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this instead of single-record paths (`api_threats_update`, `api_threats_partial_update`, `api_threats_destroy`) or when batch is inappropriate. There are no exclusions, no prerequisites, and no mention of how many objects constitute a reasonable batch.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.